OCR Text |
Show ‘a of 1789 had some rights in tl under the royal instruction in the onset a sa wee ccna ae litigation ar yhich so much SUR i bi of ie ] ye pueblo’s title to the land at the cea was broad act the that conceded was “ 3 = se i the board of commissioners to contae vert an ane estate. ae a. i eehad approStates the United S city priorthe land claimed by:to theascertain Fe Mareh ee tice Of thebecame important pueblo ri ht sioners scot . J " 5“ 4 ‘ c J a . ‘ a * * io . ° z it t ol, the treat : f G. the land under the law of Mexico and The board of commis- uadalupe Hidalgo. to the city the greater portion of the oo land inhabitants of the city, and the the use and benefit of the the decree of the approved court district e commissione ‘i oo This decree vested in the city the legal . the inclaimed for the use and benefit of habitants disposed of in the district ie 7 the cause was finally tie : Hi oinylvas passed an act transferring the record and th ings to the circuit court for the district of Pulifornia the district court b e circuit court modified the decree of ee former n from it all lands disposed of by 185 ‘ ommon council of cisco hon at 1s called the Van provided for ee adjustment of the itants and to the lands firmed. This ; the city of San FranNess ordinance, which claims of the inhabwhich had been con- by the legislature of th rise was subsequently ratifiedthe holding of the boa a circuit court ad of gress on the Sth case was still p But notwithstanding oo commissioners and the district and the action of the common ed of March, 1866 ing in the court), council, con- (while said pueblo passed a special act ry title to the land claimed by the city of San Francisco, eimposi to quiet th peas. eee izens or corporation in the ceded territory such rights under the laws of private property as they possessed treaty. Our governSpain or Mexico at the date of the but the citizens have ments may grant additional rights, more. demand to no right ized the board of ‘The act of March 3d, 1851, author for the eonfir m to pueblos and towns, commissioners to , mere easements and usubenefit of the inhabitants thereof to land granted to them by the govern- fructuary rights such decree of confirmment of Spain or Mexico, and by to the land with full title legal the ed acquir they ation This, congress same. the of dispose and power to sell over the control e absolut and y capacit in its sovereign vs. public domain had a right Polk, 2 Howard, p. 603.) to do. (Pollard Lesser of the act of March 34d, ‘¢Qybdivision one of section 13 shall be allowed that shall claim ‘No s: follow as is 1891, lly and regularly denot appear to be upon title lawfu or Mexico, or from Spain of nt rnme gove the rived from having lawful auco Mexi of blic Repu the any State of if not then comone and land, to s grant thority to make sition of the acqui the of date the plete and perfect at would have ant claim the s, State territory by the United 2 Ma) a ee Pr errr iw) = 0—¢-'t--¢--¢--4- 6-6 F. tee ate oe eees oe es 5 ve re ae a UC Ds at eteee ee Pr gatblelt ot ee weeted foe ete tettct. LA Francisco A city of San ahi end to a pueblo, presented her claim for fou confirmation. The pueblo board for said claimed under . lh wh acinthg the city was a Mexican town settled 2 a FAR es PEI Pet, bed POSS eas oe ese ee ee of that act that the FL a ee of the char‘<A fter the passage of this act the question came betreaty the of date the at title city’s the of acter the case in States United the of court e fore the suprem 363. Wall., 6 ll, of Grisar vs. McDowe fee, under ‘“The plaintiff in the case claimed as seized in the defendant the title from the city of San Francisco; States, setclaimed possession as an officer of the United ty of the proper public was ty proper the that up ting Justice Mr. s. purpose y militar for ed reserv United States , 566-7), Field, who decided the pueblo case (4 Sawyer ed with discuss delivered the opinion of the court, and of or connected great ability all the questions growing out controversy. with the claims of the city to the land in title to the legal the that court the by held again ‘‘Tt was States United the to passed ant defend the by land claimed and was a part of from Mexico under the treaty of 1848, and having been the public domain of the United States, reserved by the appropriated by the United States and ty of the city. proper the been had never 1865-6, of act treaty of 1848, the of terms the and nations of The law to the citsecure to ment govern the of make it the duty to + confirm such and Itto was equitable, legal or pp. whether(9 Statutes, it ete. claim, 630-631.) under the a also authorized to take jurisdiction of any claim to 223 PA Fa Po, be Ae Pe PAP Pe iu THE SPANISH ARCHIVES OF NEW MEXICO * Lt Prd THE SPANISH ARCHIVES OF NEW MEXICO ee, pa saa $76-4--6-4.4$-6-6-$50007606 * PS on 7 FPS el leh 229 |